Report 99/41

Funding of specialist performing arts institutions

Executive summary

Purpose

1. This report outlines the advice of the Performing Arts Review Panel (PARP) to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) on future levels of funding for the specialist performing arts institutions.

Key points

2. The HEFCE has accepted the PARP's recommendations on the level of funding for specialist performing arts institutions. The four institutions considered in the review were the Central School of Speech and Drama, Dartington College of Arts, the Northern School of Contemporary Dance, and Rose Bruford College.

3. The main recommendations were:

- to recognise that the provision of performing arts training in preparation for a career in professional performance is high cost, or very high cost, and should be funded accordingly

- that criteria developed by the panel identifying the special features essential to the provision of specialist performance training should be used to assess the proportions of high and very high cost provision

- that the funding approach should be based upon institutional premiums

- that the revised levels of funding will be in place for the academic year 1999-2000

- that the premium should be applied for a period of three years initially, pending review, and should be monitored annually.

4. A major factor shaping the panel's recommendations has been recognition of the important role both publicly and privately funded performing arts institutions play in the dance and drama world. Where appropriate, we have used comparative information from the privately-funded performing arts schools.

Action required

5. This report is for information.

Background

6. In reviewing the funding of specialist institutions in 1998, the Specialist Institutions Advisory Panel, chaired by Sir Stewart Sutherland, recommended that the HEFCE undertake a detailed look at the funding of the specialist performing arts institutions (HEFCE 98/10). To take this work forward, a review panel was established chaired by Dr John Hosier (membership details are at Annex A). The panel also commissioned consultants to investigate costs and expenditure in each institution, with a broad analysis of the amount and type of provision that was geared towards preparation for professional performance (for example, acting) and that had high or very high costs associated with delivery.

Terms of reference

7. The panel's terms of reference were:

- to identify the level and nature of costs in specialist institutions whose courses are designed to prepare students for the professional performance world

- to advise the HEFCE on how to take account of any additional cost factors identified, in its future funding

- to include within the scope of the study a small number of high quality, privately funded institutions for comparison purposes.

Working practices

8. The panel met six times between July 1998 and April 1999. These meetings were supplemented by visits to each institution, meeting the principal and senior staff, members of the teaching staff, and students. Where possible, members of the governing body were also involved.

9. The panel was also able to draw on the work commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) on the costs of provision in the independent dance and drama sector, as part of the development of the new Dance and Drama Awards scheme that the HEFCE will be administering. This provided valuable opportunities for cross-comparisons of practice, characteristics of provision, and costs of provision between the public and independent sectors. This comparison was made easier by the fact that the same consultants carried out both areas of work. A broadly standard set of cost factors was used to frame questions to the institutions (attached at Annex B).

A common framework

10. On the basis of this range of evidence, the panel established a broad framework for its recommendations. This was:

a. Recommendations would need to recognise the differences between each institution.

b. The cost drivers in each institution were broadly similar.

c. In developing talented individuals for the professional performance world in dance and drama, a significant proportion of current best practice was to be found in the independent sector.

d. The scale of provision in some of the publicly funded institutions was at odds with best practice. There should be a managed reduction both to enhance quality and to meet market demands more appropriately.

e. The publicly-funded institutions should aim, through focusing on areas of strength and reducing diversification, to take their place alongside other leading national providers for the dance and drama sector in the same way as the publicly funded music conservatoires do for the music sector.

f. That where the nature, aims and costs of provision in the publicly-funded institutions were comparable with those in the independent sector, funding levels should be broadly comparable with the new awards scheme for the independent sector. (The review provided strong evidence that high quality vocational provision in performing arts is necessarily high cost – whether it takes place in the private or public sector.)

Characteristics of provision

11. On the basis of visits to independent and publicly-funded institutions (and using the consultants' analyses of both sectors), the panel drew up criteria which are characteristic of the provision that is geared to developing students for professional performance. These are attached at Annex C.

12. In developing these criteria and investigating the costs of provision in the publicly-funded providers, the panel identified a broader range of costs than was typical in the independent sector. This was primarily due, in the independent schools, to a much tighter focus on the vocational and skills development aspects, together with the much smaller scale of provision. The size of the independent schools ranges from around 80 to about 300 students, whereas the four HEFCE-funded institutions range from about 155 full-time equivalent students (Northern School of Contemporary Dance) to almost 850 FTE (Rose Bruford College).

13. Although the cost drivers are broadly comparable across provision, it is the frequency and/or intensity of their presence that varies considerably, both between the sectors and within the courses in the four specialists. So, for example, involvement in public performances may increase significantly as a student progresses through the course, whereas the intensity of skills development training (for example, voice work or body conditioning) may be more intensive during the early stages of a course. In the independent sector these high cost factors are much more in evidence at all stages of the course.

Institutional premiums

14. Given these variations in cost drivers within provision in an institution, the panel developed funding recommendations based on institutional premiums rather than trying to link funding to specific courses.

15. The advantages of an institutional premium approach are:

- it would provide no incentive to increase provision in the highly vocational high cost areas, avoiding mission drift. (Each institution's mission is dedicated to the pursuit of a particular form of vocational training, which the panel was keen to protect)

- it would minimise the administrative load on institutions in returning student number data

- it would allow the incorporation of managed student number migration as part of the process, in line with the HEFCE's overall funding method. A small, managed reduction in student numbers should encourage these institutions to focus resources in the area of performance, enabling them to offer the sort of experience offered by the best independents.

16. The premium levels are based on the detailed costing work undertaken by the consultants, which identified costs of provision per student FTE ranging from approximately £4,000 to just over £7,000. The highest cost provision is exclusively associated with significant elements of courses such as acting, stage management and dance. In addition, this level of funding is comparable with the costs identified in similar provision in the independent schools, thus providing a basis for funding similar provision in the two sectors at similar rates. The institutional premium should be applied as a percentage against each institution's total student FTE numbers.

17. In each case, different costings arrived at through analysis of current total numbers will be developed into a single institutional premium, which will be applied for a period of three years initially (pending review). In addition, in every case, there is a requirement to reduce the overall scale of provision, through migration. The migration would operate on standard principles, moving each institution to the –5 per cent lower boundary of its funding tolerance band. Enhanced funding and student FTE adjustments would therefore increase the average unit of resource available to each student in the very high cost, vocationally-oriented areas. A single, institutional premium removes the financial incentive for any institution to increase numbers in these high cost areas of provision, thus addressing the panel's concern that the scale of provision and diversification in some institutions had been at odds with best practice.

18. The mix of provision at each institution will be monitored annually, looking specifically at any significant changes in the numbers of students undertaking high and very high cost provision as part of the overall migration strategy to be negotiated with each of them. We will reserve the right to adjust institutions' migration strategies if they attempt to change significantly the proportions of high and very high cost provision beyond the levels on which the PARP developed its premium recommendations.

19. In drawing up these recommendations we recognise the important role of the publicly-funded performing arts institutions in the sector as a whole. In light of this, we believe that there will be a continuing need for the HEFCE to make appropriate funding arrangements that ensure that these institutions continue to play their full part in a vibrant and diverse higher education sector, beyond the initial three-year period.

Institutional recommendations

20. In addition to the funding recommendations, the panel identified some issues as to the management and strategic direction of some of the institutions reviewed, to safeguard their ability to deliver courses comparable in quality and strength of vocational emphasis with those in the independent sector. Bearing in mind these points, the panel also made recommendations about the way in which the four colleges should develop. These recommendations have been discussed with each institution and incorporated into their implementation and migration strategies.

21. The panel's institutional conclusions and recommendations were as follows:

- all schools should develop and maintain appropriate professional endorsement and accreditation and links with industry

- all schools should have clear institutional plans for future academic and strategic development, taking into account the profession's needs and the impact of the changes in funding

- current provision should be regularly reviewed to ensure the development of a clear focus on the highest quality, vocationally oriented preparation of students, the majority of whom will enter the relevant professional area

- in some cases, the development of links with a partner vocational organisation should be explored

- there should not, in general, be further increases in overall student numbers

- the schools should put substantial effort into maintaining or improving the teaching contact hours with students on acting courses.

General comments

22. The panel noted that the purpose of allocating a premium is to recognise reasonable additional costs, not to offset inefficiencies, and that it would therefore be important to ensure that all institutions in receipt of a premium had efficient management procedures. The panel hoped that the HEFCE could promote good practice between small specialist institutions, in order to encourage efficiencies.

23. The panel's conclusions were predicated on an assumption that the four schools have the potential to become centres of national excellence for the whole sector, both independent and publicly-funded. The HEFCE, with the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), are also introducing the Dance and Drama Awards, which provide an alternative route for developing or sustaining centres of excellence in that sector. We will need to keep under review the developing interaction between these two parts of the dance and drama sector.

Monitoring and review

24. The panel recommended that the premium should be applied for an initial period of three years, during which the HEFCE should continue to monitor these institutions.

Annex A

Performing Arts Review Panel (PARP)

Annex B

Framework of questions

In framing questions about the scale and nature of costs associated with the provision of high quality training that prepares people for entry into the professional performance world, the panel used the following factors in institutions' cost bases (both private and public).

Performance activities:

- theatre maintenance and/or hire

- theatre workshop equipment and staff

- scenery: construction, and raw materials (timber, cladding, paint, and so on)

- costumes and wardrobe (materials, making and laundering)

- stage management

- stage sound and lighting costs (operation and maintenance)

- publicity, marketing and box office

- performance rights

- touring costs

- hire of rehearsal spaces

- additional costs of musicians and music staff for productions

- health and safety requirements

- professional choreographers, directors, musical directors, set and costume designers.

Academic activities:

- auditioning and interviewing costs (individual assessments, initial and recall, international auditions and recruitment)

- visiting professional teachers

- choreographers and artists

- number of studio hours for classes

- longer than average terms and intensity of teaching

- small group teaching

- staff:student ratios

- market wage rates for some staff in high demand

- regional (that is, outside London) availability of specialised/high profile visiting lecturers, and the importance these people play as role models

- individual tuition

- number of staff per class (demonstrator, teacher and pianist)

- medical support – including physiotherapy, injury prevention, medical referral, counselling

- maintenance of specialist equipment (including piano tuning)

- capacity constraints.

Others:

- providing specialist placements and training for dance and drama in education

- providing professional ‘work experience' placements in companies

- sustaining an active network of contacts with agents

- creative collaborations with professional schools of art and music

- opportunities and resources to invest in widening participation.

Annex C

Criteria for high, or very high, cost provision

The review panel agreed that enhanced funding for performing arts provision in specialist institutions should be awarded only if the participant institutions could meet the following criteria:

- All students on performing arts courses undertake public productions each year, similar in number and standard to those in the best comparable professional training practice, and at a level appropriate to the demands of the profession.

- The selection of all students to these courses is by means of an intensive auditioning process including, where appropriate, physical examination, to ensure that only students of professional calibre are accepted.

- Dedicated specialist facilities, materials and equipment are available to, and used by, all students on the performing arts courses. These should include workshop facilities, professional standard performance and rehearsal/studio space, and materials and equipment of professional quality.

- A wide range of vocationally-oriented and professionally-necessary specialist teaching is available to all students on performing arts courses. This should be delivered in group sizes appropriate to the nurturing of individual talent comparable to the practice in the best professional training providers. This is likely to include: Alexander technique, voice and movement, medical and body conditioning services, and so on.

- A minimum of 50 per cent of a student's required hours is spent in professionally supervised practical work, with the appropriate technical support. This would typically be not less than 20 hours per week, as can be seen in the best comparable professional training practice.

- The education and training of students should be related to the current and future needs of the profession, through adequate links with the professional world. This should include providing specialist placements and training, sustaining an active network of contacts with agents, and supporting an ongoing programme of employment of current professionals.